VERB-ECHO ANSWERS IN MONGOLIAN*
Yuta Sakamoto and Lina Bao
Meiji University and Qiannan Normal College for Nationalities

1.

Introduction

In this paper, we investigate Verb-Echo Answers (VEAs, hereafter) in the Khorchin dialectof Mongolian spoken in Inner Mongolia (Mongolian, hereafter), a typical example of which isillustrated in (1).1(1)

Q:

Batu-bol Baɣatur-i
Batu-TOP Bagatur-ACC

sigümjile-gsen
criticize-PST.ADN

uu?
Q‘Did Batu criticize Bagatur?’A:

Sigümjile-jai.
criticize-PST.CON(Lit.) ‘Criticized.’With (1Q) as its antecedent, (1A), where only a verbal complex is stranded, means that Batu
criticized Bagatur despite the fact that both the subject and the object are phonologically empty.
Given that Mongolian is a radical pro-drop language (Takahashi 2007, Sakamoto 2012, 2017,
in press), it appears to be intuitive to consider (1A) as involving pro-drop of the subject and theobject as shown in (2).2
*This research was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant # 18K12413 for the first author.
1

Abbreviations used in the text are as follows: ACC = accusative; ADN = adnominal; C =complementizer; CL = classifier; CON = conclusive; COP = copula; DAT = dative; GEN = genitive;
NEG = negation; NML = nominalizer; NOM = nominative; NPST = non-past; PASS = passive; POL =polite; PST = past; Q = question particle; SFP = sentence final particle; TOP = topic.

2

Takahashi (2007) and Sakamoto (2012, 2017, in press) argue that argument ellipsis, where arguments
can directly undergo ellipsis (cf. Oku 1998, Kim 1999, among many others), as well as pro is operativein Mongolian grammar. Given this, (1A) can also be derived via argument ellipsis of the subject and theobject. In the following discussion, however, the distinction between pro and argument ellipsis is not
crucial, so I will just refer to the pro strategy for expository purposes.



-45-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019(2)

Pro-drop Analysis
CP

TP

proBatuC

T’

VP

proBagatur

T

Vsigümjile-jaiHere, the subject and the object are replaced by a null pronoun pro, being interpreted as Batu
and Bagatur, respectively.
However, there is an alternative analysis of the VEA construction which has been
extensively explored by Holmberg (2016). He claims that sentences like (1A) are derived
through a combination of overt V-raising and ellipsis. For example, (1A) is analyzed as in (3).
(3)

Overt V-raising + Ellipsis Analysis
CP

TP

DPBatuC+T+Vsigümjile-jai

T’

VP

DPBagaturtt→ Ellipsis

Here, V has overtly raised to C via T, which is followed by ellipsis of the TP including the
subject and the object, as a result of which the surface string of (1A) is derived. Crucially, there
is no need to utilize pro for the phonological absence of the subject and the object under thisanalysis.




-46-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)In this paper, we investigate the syntactic properties of VEAs in Mongolian and determine
how they can be best accounted for. In section 2, we introduce two diagnostics in the literature
to differentiate the pro analysis in (1) and the V-raising + ellipsis analysis in (3), i.e. (i) theavailability of the null adjunct reading (Sugimura 2012) and (ii) intolerance of voice mismatch(Sato and Hayashi 2018), and then demonstrate that the latter analysis gains empirical support.
Further, building on Merchant (2013), we show that there is syntax in ellipsis sites of VEAs in
Mongolian, claiming that they are best explained under the structural analysis of ellipsis. In
section 3, building on Koizumi (2000), we discuss what appears to be a non-constituent
coordination in Mongolian to examine whether overt V-raising to C, which is a prerequisite forthe structural analysis of VEAs, is operative in Mongolian grammar. Section 4 concludes thepaper.
2. Pro or Ellipsis? VP-ellipsis or TP-ellipsis?
2.1 Null Adjunct Reading
The first diagnostic that we adopt to distinguish the pro analysis in (1) from the ellipsis
analysis in (3) comes from the availability of the null adjunct reading in VEAs. It has been
observed that manner adverbs by themselves cannot be phonologically empty in radical prodrop languages, for example in Japanese as in (4) (cf. Oku 1998, Saito 2007, Funakoshi 2016).
(4)

Context: Taro and Hanako are at a bar, having ordered red wine and white wine,
respectively. Soon after a waiter brought their wine to the table, Taro got a call fromtheir boss and it turned out they have to go back to their office due to an urgent issue. Taro
told Hanako that they should finish their wine quickly and leave for their office.
a.

Taroo-wa subayaku
Taro-TOP quickly

akawain-o
non-da.
red.wine-ACC drink-PST‘Taro drank red wine quickly.’b.

*Demo Hanako-wa
Δsubayaku sirowain-onoma-nakat-ta.
but
Hanako-TOP
white.wine-ACC drink-NEG-PST(Int.) ‘But Hanako did not drink white wine quickly.’With (4a) as its antecedent, (4b) cannot mean that Hanako did not drink white wine quickly,
and instead it can only mean that Hanako did not drink white wine at all. This indicates that themanner adverb subayaku ‘quickly’ by itself cannot be a target for pro-drop. Given this,Sugimura (2012) claims that sentences like (5) provide a strong support for the claim that VEAs
in Japanese involve ellipsis rather than pro-drop.




-47-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

(5)

Q:

Kimi-wa subayaku
you-TOP quickly

akawain-o
non-dano?
red.wine-ACC drink-PST Q‘Did you drink red wine quickly?’A:

Noma-nakat-ta-yo!
drink-NEG-PST-SFP(Lit.) ‘Not drank.’

As a reply to (5Q), (5A) can mean that the speaker did not drink red wine quickly, which inturn suggests that the manner adverb subayaku ‘quickly’ is silently interpreted (call thisinterpretation the null adjunct reading) in this case, in contrast to (4). Under the pro-drop
analysis, (5A) would be analyzed as follows.
(6) *[CP [TP proI [NegP [VP proquickly prored.wine Vdrank] Neg] T] C]
However, this is not a possible configuration because manner adverbs cannot be pro-dropped
as has already been shown in (4): proquickly is not an available option. Sugimura then argues that
unlike the pro-drop analysis, the V-raising + ellipsis analysis can straightforwardly account for
the availability of the null adjunct reading in (5A), as illustrated in (7).3(7)[CP [TP I [NegP [VP quickly red.wine tV] tNeg] tT] C+T+Neg+Vdrank]

Here, V undergoes raising to C via Neg and T, which is followed by TP-ellipsis. Crucial for us
here is that the ellipsis site includes the manner adverb in question, thus being able toaccommodate the null adjunct interpretation. Therefore, sentences like (5A) suggests that
VEAs involve overt V-raising + ellipsis, not just involving pro-drop.
Let us now turn to the case of Mongolian. First, Mongolian manner adverbs by themselves
cannot be pro-dropped in the same way as Japanese, as shown in (8).
(8)

Context: Bagatur and Ulagan are at a bar, having ordered wine and apple wine,
respectively. Soon after a waiter brought their wine to the table, Bagatur got a callfrom their boss and it turned out they have to go back to their office due to an urgent issue.
Bagatur told Ulagan that they should finish their wine quickly and leave for their office.


3

Sugimura originally proposed that sentences like (5A) involve V-raising to T followed by VP-ellipsis.
Thus, (5A) would be analyzed as in (i) under her original proposal.
(i) [CP [TP proI [NegP [VP quickly red.wine tV] tNeg] T+Neg+Vdrank] C]

In (i), the subject is not elided but instead pro-dropped. At this point, we cannot tell whether (5A) is
derived as in (7) or (i), but see section 2.2 for an argument for the former derivation.



-48-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)a.

Baɣatur-bol qurdun-iyar üjüm-un
ariqi-yiuuɣu-jai.
Bagatur-TOP quickly
grape-GEN alcohol-ACC drink-PST.CON‘Bagatur drank wine quickly.’b.

*Ulaɣan-bol
Ulagan-TOP

Δqurdun-iyar almurad-un
apple-GEN

ariqi-yiuuɣu-ɣsanügei.
alcohol-ACC drink-PST.ADN NEG(Int.) ‘Ulagan did not drink wine quickly.’With (8a) as its antecedent, (8b) can only mean that Ulagan did not drink apple wine at all, andit cannot mean that Ulagan did not drink apple wine quickly. This shows that manner adverbs
cannot be a target for pro-drop in Mongolian. Keeping this in mind, let us consider whether
VEAs in Mongolian can accommodate the null adjunct reading. The relevant example is shownin (9).
(9)Q:

Batu-bol ariqi-yi
qurdun-iyar uuɣu-ɣsanuu?
Batu-TOP alcohol-ACC quickly
drink-PST.ADN Q‘Did Batu drink alcohol quickly?’A:Uuɣu-ɣsanügei.
drink-PST.ADN NEG(Lit.) ‘Not drank.’

As a reply to (9Q), (9A) can yield the null adjunct reading: it can mean that Batu did not drink
alcohol quickly. If (9A) were derived via pro-drop, it would be mysterious why the relevantinterpretation is available (cf. (6)), but if (9A) is derived via V-raising + ellipsis, the observed
interpretation straightforwardly follows, as illustrated in (10).
(10) [CP [TP Batu [NegP [VP quickly wine tV] tNeg] tT] C+T+Neg+Vdrank] [= (9A)]

Here, the V uuɣu-ɣsan ‘drank’ undergoes overt raising to C followed by TP-ellipsis. Crucial
for us here is that the TP-ellipsis site includes the manner adverb qurdun-iyar ‘quickly,’ thus
being able to account for the null adjunct reading in question.
As has already been noted in footnote 2, however, it is not quite clear whether TP or VP
has undergone ellipsis in the above VEA examples. In other words, we could analyze (9A) as
involving V-raising to T, not to C, followed by VP-ellipsis, not TP-ellipsis, as illustrated in (11).
(11) [CP [TP proBatu [NegP [VP quickly wine tV] tNeg] T+Neg+Vdrank] C] [= (9A)]

Under this analysis, the subject Batu has been replaced by pro. The availability of the nulladjunct reading in (9A) thus does not tell us whether (9A) should be analyzed as in (10) or (11).



-49-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

In the following subsection, however, we introduce another diagnostic proposed by Sato andHayashi (2018), which not only argues for the V-raising + ellipsis analysis over the pro-drop
analysis but also shows us that what is elided in VEAs in Mongolian is TP, not VP.
2.2 Voice Mismatch
2.2.1 Intolerance of Voice Mismatch
One of the distinctive differences between TP-ellipsis and VP-ellipsis is related to voicemismatch (cf. Merchant 2001, 2013). In the VP-ellipsis construction, voice (active/passive) in
the antecedent clause does not have to be matched with voice in the ellipsis target clause, as
shown in (12).
(12) The janitor must remove the trash whenever it is apparent that it should be ΔVP.
(Merchant 2013: 78)
Here, the antecedent clause is in active voice, whereas the ellipsis target clause in passive voice,thus a case of voice mismatch, but the sentence is grammatical. On the other hand, in the TPellipsis, i.e. sluicing, construction, voice in the antecedent clause and the ellipsis target clausemust be matched as illustrated in (13).
(13) *Someone murdered Joe, but we don’t know who by ΔTP.

(Merchant 2013: 78)

Here, voice is active and passive in the antecedent and the ellipsis target clause, respectively,
and it seems that this mismatch makes (13) ungrammatical. Merchant (2013) claims that thecontrast between (12) and (13) lies in the size of ellipsis. To be more specific, assuming that
VoiceP, which encodes the information on voice (active/passive), is located in a position
between TP and VP, he argues that the TP-ellipsis site contains the information on voice in its
domain, whereas the VP-ellipsis site does not, as illustrated in (14).
(14)

TP → Ø: ellipsis site contains Voice

VoicePVoice

VP → Ø: ellipsis site does not contain VoiceThe impossibility of voice mismatch in TP ellipsis, e.g. (13), can then be accounted for in lightof the syntactic identity requirement for ellipsis: the antecedent TP and the ellipsis target TP in(13) cannot count as syntactically identical in that they involve different voice features, i.e.
active vs. passive, as illustrated in (15).




-50-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)(15) a.

TP → Antecedent

DPsomeoneb.

TP → Ellipsis

T’

T

DPJoe

VoiceP

Voice[Active]

T’

VoiceP

Twas

VP

Vmurdered

Voice[Passive]
DPJoe

VP

VmurderedtDP

By contrast, voice mismatch should be allowed in VP-ellipsis (cf. (12)) because the syntactic
identity requirement is met between the antecedent VP and the ellipsis target VP, as illustratedin (16).
(16) a.

TPb.

DPthe janitor

T’

Tmust

TP

DPit

VoiceP

Voice[Active]

T’

Twas

VP → Antecedent

Vremove

DPthe trash

VoiceP

Voice[Passive]

VP → Ellipsis

Vremoved

tDP

More specifically, the Voice head is outside of the VP-ellipsis site, so that different values ofvoice (active/passive) do not matter for syntactic identity in the VP-ellipsis case unlike the TPellipsis case.
Given the above discussion, Sato and Hayashi (2018) investigate an interaction between
VEAs in Japanese and voice mismatch. Consider the following data.
(17) Q:

Anata-no gakka-wa
John-oyatoi-mashi-ta ka?
you-GEN department-TOP John-ACC hire-POL-PST Q‘Did your department hire John?’




-51-

1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFK5HVXOWVDQG$FWLYLWLHV      $  +DL <DWRLPDVKLWD\R           \HV  KLUH32/3676)3           /LW µ<HV+LUHG¶      $ +DL <DWRZDUHPDVKLWD\R           \HV  KLUH3$6632/3676)3           /LW µ<HV:DVKLUHG¶
7KH TXHVWLRQ VHQWHQFH 4  LQYROYHV DFWLYH YRLFH7KHQ WKDW WKH DQVZHU VHQWHQFH $ 
ZKLFKLQYROYHVDFWLYHYRLFHLVDIHOLFLWRXVUHSO\WR 4 EXW $ ZKLFKLQYROYHVSDVVLYH
YRLFHLVQRWLQGLFDWHVWKDW9($VLQ-DSDQHVHGLVDOORZYRLFHPLVPDWFK
6DWRDQG+D\DVKLWKHQGUHZWZRFRQFOXVLRQVIURPWKHDERYHREVHUYDWLRQ)LUVWWKH\DUJXHWKDW9($VDUHGHULYHGYLDDFRPELQDWLRQRI9UDLVLQJ73VL]HHOOLSVLVQRW93VL]HHOOLSVLV
7KXV $ LVDQDO\]HGDVLQ     >&3>73-RKQ>9RLFH3 SDVVLYH >93E\P\GHSDUWPHQWW9@W9RLFH@W7@&79RLFH9GUDQN@> $ @+HUH9XQGHUJRHVUDLVLQJWR&IROORZHGE\HOOLSVLVRI73&UXFLDOIRUXVKHUHLVWKDWYRLFHLQ
WKHDQWHFHGHQWFODXVH 4  DFWLYH DQGYRLFHLQWKHHOOLSVLVWDUJHWFODXVH $  SDVVLYH 
DUHGLIIHUHQWDQGWKH9RLFHKHDGLVLQFOXGHGLQVLGHRIWKH73HOOLSVLVGRPDLQ*LYHQWKHV\QWDFWLF
LGHQWLW\UHTXLUHPHQWIRUHOOLSVLVWKHXQJUDPPDWLFDOLW\RI $ FDQWKHQEHVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGO\DFFRXQWHGIRUWKHDQWHFHGHQW73LQ 4 DQGWKHHOOLSVLVWDUJHW73LQ $ FDQQRWFRXQWDVV\QWDFWLFDOO\LGHQWLFDOGXHWRWKHGLIIHUHQWYDOXHVRIYRLFH FI  DQG  
6HFRQGWKH\FODLPWKDWSURGURSLVQRWHYHQDQRSWLRQIRU9($V7REHPRUHVSHFLILFLI
SURGURSZHUHDQDYDLODEOHRSWLRQLQ9($V $ FRXOGEHDQDO\]HGDVLQ  ZKRVHQRQ
SURGURSFRXQWHUSDUWLVVKRZQLQ  
 ,QRUGHUWRGHULYH $ XQGHUWKHSURGURSDQDO\VLVZHKDYHWRUHSODFHERWK-RKQDQGZDWDVLQR
JDNNDQLµE\P\GHSDUWPHQW¶E\SUR2QHPLJKWWKHQZRQGHUZKHWKHUDE\SKUDVHLQSDVVLYHFDQEHD
WDUJHWIRUSURGURS7KHIROORZLQJH[DPSOHVKRZVWKDWLWDFWXDOO\FDQL   -RKQJD    7R\RWDQL  VDL\RRVDUHWDQRZD      VLWWHLWDJD    -RKQ120 7R\RWDE\ KLUH3$6636710/723 NQRZ352*367EXW    %LOOJD     ¨7R\RWDQL VDL\RRVDUHWDQRZD       VLUDQDNDWWD    %LOO120          KLUH3$6636710/723  NQRZ1(*367    µ,NQHZWKDW-RKQZDVKLUHGE\7R\RWDEXW,GLGQRWNQRZWKDW%LOOZDVKLUHGE\7R\RWD¶$OWKRXJKWKHE\SKUDVH7R\RWDQLLVSKRQRORJLFDOO\GURSSHGLQWKHVHFRQGFRQMXQFWLWLVLQWHUSUHWDEOH
7KLVPHDQVWKDWDE\SKUDVHFDQEHDWDUJHWIRUSURGURSLQ-DSDQHVHZKLFKLQWXUQLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKH
FRQILJXUDWLRQLQ  LVLQSULQFLSOHSRVVLEOH



-52-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)(19) [CP [TP proJohn [VP proby my department Vwas.hired] T] C](20) Hai. John-wa watasi-no gakka-ni
yato-ware-masi-ta-yo.
yes John-TOP I-GEN
department-by hire-PASS-POL-PST-SFP[cf. =(17A2)]‘Yes, John was hired by my department.’

In (19), the subject and the by-phrase are replaced by pro. Given that the non-pro-drop
counterpart (20) is a felicitous reply to (17Q) (sounds a little bit redundant though), we have toattribute the ungrammaticality (or intolerance of voice mismatch) of (17A2) to pro-drop.
Therefore, once we take pro-drop as an available option for VEAs, we have to account for why
pro-drop is related to intolerance of voice mismatch.5 By contrast, as has already been shown,
once we assume that VEAs are derived via involving TP-ellipsis, that (17A2) is ungrammaticalreceives a straightforward explanation under the syntactic identity requirement for ellipsis.
In sum, based on the ungrammaticality of (17A2), Sato and Hayashi argue that in the VEA
construction, (i) what is elided is TP and (ii) pro-drop is unavailable.
Keeping the above discussion in mind, let us now turn to an interaction between VEAs andvoice mismatch in Mongolian. If VEAs in Mongolian involve TP ellipsis in the same way as
VEAs in Japanese, it should also disallow voice mismatch. This prediction is actually borne
out, as shown in (21).6(21) Q:Čin-uyeke surɣaɣuli-bol yamar nige kelen-ü
you-GEN university-TOP
someonekölüsle-gsenuu?
hire-PST.ADN Q

erdemten-ilinguist-ACC‘Did your university hire any linguist?’
A1: Teimü. Kölüsle-jei.
yeshire-PST.CON(Lit.) ‘Yes. Hired.’
5
See Sato and Hayashi (2018) for the observation that pro-drop does allow voice mismatch in contrast
to VEAs.
6

The non-elliptical counterpart to (21A2) is grammatical as in (i) (somewhat sounds redundant though).

(i) Teimü. yamar nige kelen-ü erdemten-Ø min-ü yeke surɣaɣuli-d kölüsle-gde-jei.
yessomeonelinguist-NOM I-GEN university-by
hire-PASS-PST.CON(Lit.) ‘Yes. Some linguist was hired by my university.’



-53-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

A2: *Teimü. Kölüsle-gde-jei.
yeshire-PASS-PST.CON(Lit.) ‘Yes. Was hired.’With the active question (21Q) as its antecedent, the active VEA (21A1) is grammatical,
whereas the passive VEA (21A2) is ungrammatical. Following Sato and Hayashi, we argue that
this contrast straightforwardly follows if pro-drop is unavailable in VEAs in Mongolian and
VEAs are derived via V-movement to C followed by TP ellipsis: (21A2) is excluded because it
cannot satisfy the syntactic identity requirement for ellipsis.
It is worth noting here that it has been really controversial whether head movement exists
in head-final languages including Japanese and Mongolian since the movement in question
does not affect word order (unlike head movement in head-initial languages like English), but
if the V-raising to C + TP-ellipsis analysis of VEAs in Mongolian is on the right track, it follows
that syntactic head movement does exist in Mongolian grammar (Sato and Hayashi has in fact
concluded that head movement is operative in Japanese grammar based on the above reasoning).
However, the analysis in question is built on the hidden assumption that ellipsis sites in VEAs
involve silent syntax, thus being able to accommodate a position for a trace of head movement.
In the following subsection, we introduce the nonstructural analysis of ellipsis that would
analyze VEAs as involving no syntax in ellipsis sites, and discuss whether such an analysis canbe empirically maintained. Following the literature (cf. Merchant 2013), we argue that
intolerance of voice mismatch in Mongolian VEAs not only shows that what is involved is TPsize ellipsis but also indicates that ellipsis sites of VEAs are silently structured, thus providing
us with an argument against the nonstructural analysis of VEAs.
2.2.2 An Argument for Syntax in Silence
In the literature, there are two approaches to ellipsis: the structural analysis (cf. Sag 1976,
Williams 1977, Fiengo and May 1994, Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995, Merchant 2001,
2013, Chung 2013, among others) and the nonstructural analysis (cf. Keenan 1971, Dalrymple,
Sheiber, and Pereira 1991, Ginzburg and Sag 2000, and Culicover and Jackendoff 2005). For
example, TP-ellipsis, i.e. sluicing, in (22) is analyzed as in (23) under the former analysis.
(22) Mary met someone, but I don’t know who.




-54-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)(23) Structural Analysis... but I don’t know

CP

who1

C’

C

TP

DPshe

T’

T

VP

Vmet

→ Ellipsis

t1Here, the wh-phrase who has undergone movement to Spec, CP, leaving its trace in the object
position, which is followed by TP-ellipsis. Crucial under this analysis is that there is syntax inellipsis sites. Thus, in (23), the TP-ellipsis site is silently structured and the observed
interpretation can be straightforwardly obtained.
On the other hand, the nonstructural analysis claims that there is no syntax in “ellipsis”
sites: what we see is what we get. Therefore, the sluicing example (22) is analyzed as in (24)with some simplifications.
(24) Nonstructural Analysis... but I don’t knowCP

who
Here, the sluiced embedded CP just contains the remnant wh-phrase who and nothing else. As
for the observed interpretation, putting technical details aside, the recent advocate of thenonstructural approach, Culicover and Jackendoff (2005), for example, assign featural
machinery to the CP node and it is designed to provide us with the interpretation in question(among other things). Under this analysis, the identity requirement between an antecedent andan ellipsis target is necessarily semantic: a phrase can undergo ellipsis if the meanings of theantecedent and the ellipsis target can count as “identical.”




-55-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

It seems challenging to determine whether silence involves structure or not, but theliterature has provided a number of diagnostics to differentiate the above two analyses, one ofwhich is related to voice mismatch. Let us go back to the sluicing example (13), repeated hereas (25).
(25) *Someone murdered Joe, but we don’t know who by ΔTP.

(Merchant 2013: 78)

This sentence is ungrammatical due to voice mismatch: the antecedent TP is in active voice andthe ellipsis target TP in passive voice. Recall that we provided an account for intolerance ofvoice mismatch in TP-ellipsis in light of syntactic identity. Specifically, following Merchant(2013), we claimed that what makes (25) ungrammatical lies in the different values of voice inthe antecedent TP and the ellipsis target TP, as illustrated in (15). The explanation there, i.e. theone based on the internal syntax of ellipsis sites, is possible under the structural analysis ofellipsis; however, it is impossible under the nonstructural analysis simply because there is no
syntax in ellipsis sites (cf. (24)). Of particular interest for us here is that active and passive
clauses are mutually entailing, so that the semantic identity requirement which is posed on the
nonstructural analysis of ellipsis would overgenerate since it would always allow voicemismatch. The literature has thus taken intolerance of voice mismatch to be an argument forthe structural analysis of TP-ellipsis (= sluicing).
Keeping the above discussion in mind, let us return to VEAs. As has already been shown
above, VEAs involve TP-ellipsis, and we have tacitly assumed the structural analysis of ellipsis,
as illustarted in (26).
(26) Structural Analysis
CP

TP

DP

C+T+V

T’

VP

DP

t

t

→ Ellipsis

Here, V undergoes raising to C followed by TP-ellipsis. However, this is not the only possibility.
If we take the nonstructural approach to ellipsis, VEAs could then be analyzed as illustrated in(27) with some simplifications.




-56-

9HUE(FKR$QVZHUVLQ0RQJROLDQ <6DNDPRWR /%DR   1RQVWUXFWXUDO$QDO\VLV                                   &3                                 &79
8QGHUWKLVDQDO\VLVZHMXVWKDYHDVWUDQGHG9 DQGLWVDVVRFLDWHV DQGQRWKLQJHOVH7KLVPHDQVWKDWWKHUHLVQRV\QWDFWLFKHDGPRYHPHQWRI9WR&,IWKLVDQDO\VLVLVFRUUHFWZHHQGXSZLWKORVLQJ WKH HYLGHQFH IRU WKH DYDLODELOLW\ RI RYHUW V\QWDFWLF KHDG PRYHPHQW LQ 0RQJROLDQ+RZHYHUDVVKRZQLQ  9($VLQ0RQJROLDQGLVDOORZYRLFHPLVPDWFKLQWKHVDPHZD\DV
73HOOLSVLV LQ (QJOLVK ,I LQWROHUDQFH RI YRLFH PLVPDWFK LQGLFDWHV WKH SUHVHQFH RI V\QWD[ LQ
HOOLSVLVVLWHVDVLVVWDQGDUGO\DVVXPHGLQWKHOLWHUDWXUHWKHXQJUDPPDWLFDOLW\RI $ QRWRQO\VKRZVWKDW9($VLQYROYH 73VL]H HOOLSVLVEXWDOVRSURYLGHVXVZLWKHYLGHQFHWKDWWKHUHLVV\QWD[LQHOOLSVLVVLWHVRI9($VZKLFKLQWXUQLQGLFDWHVWKDWRYHUWV\QWDFWLFKHDGPRYHPHQWLV
RSHUDWLYHLQ0RQJROLDQJUDPPDU
  $QRWKHU$UJXPHQWIRU6\QWDFWLF+HDG0RYHPHQW&RRUGLQDWLRQ
7KHFXUUHQWDQDO\VLVRI9($VLQ0RQJROLDQZKHUH9XQGHUJRHVUDLVLQJWR&DVLOOXVWUDWHG
LQ   PDNHV RQH LPPHGLDWH SUHGLFWLRQ WKH 73 RXW RI ZKLFK 9 KDV XQGHUJRQH UDLVLQJFRQVWLWXWHVDFRQVWLWXHQW,QWKLVVHFWLRQZHDUJXHWKDWWKLVSUHGLFWLRQLVLQIDFWERUQHRXWRQWKH
EDVLVRIWKHGDWDZLWKUHVSHFWWRFRRUGLQDWLRQ%HIRUH ZH GLVFXVV 0RQJROLDQ GDWD OHW XV LQWURGXFH .RL]XPL¶V   GLVFXVVLRQ RQ
-DSDQHVH FRRUGLQDWLRQ DQG LWV UHODWLRQ WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI RYHUW 9UDLVLQJ WR & &RQVLGHU WKHIROORZLQJGDWD   D   0DU\JD    >>-RKQQL   ULQJRR     WX@ WR   >%REQL           0DU\120  -RKQ'$7 DSSOH$&& &/ DQG  %RE'$7           EDQDQDR     ERQ@@  DJHWD           EDQDQD$&&  &/    JLYH367           µ0DU\JDYHDSSOHVWR-RKQDQGEDQDQDVWR%RE¶        .RL]XPL       E   0DU\JD    >>VXXSDDGH      SL]DR      PDL@  WR   >VDND\DGH           0DU\120  VXSHUPDUNHWDW SL]]D$&& &/   DQG  OLTXRUVWRUHDW           ZDLQR     ERQ@@  NDWWD           ZLQH$&&  &/    EX\367           µ0DU\ERXJKWSL]]DVDWDVXSHUPDUNHWDQGERWWOHVRIZLQHDWDOLTXRUVWRUH¶.RL]XPL ,Q D ZKDWLVFRRUGLQDWHGLVDFKXQNLQFOXGLQJDGDWLYH'3DQGDQDFFXVDWLYH'3ZLWKLWVQXPHUDOFODVVLILHU*LYHQWKHVWDQGDUGDVVXPSWLRQWKDWZKDWFDQEHFRRUGLQDWHGLVDFRQVWLWXHQW



-57-

1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFK5HVXOWVDQG$FWLYLWLHVWKHJUDPPDWLFDOLW\RI D LQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHFKXQNLQTXHVWLRQZKLFKDSSHDUVWREHDQRQFRQVWLWXHQWPXVWEHDFRQVWLWXHQW.RL]XPLWKHQDUJXHVWKDW D LVGHULYHGYLDRYHUW9UDLVLQJ
WR7 RUY LQWKHDFURVVWKHERDUGPDQQHUDVLOOXVWUDWHGLQ     >&3>730DU\>>93WR-RKQDSSOHW9@DQG>93WR%REEDQDQDW9@@79JDYH@&@+HUHWKH9DJHµJLYH¶KDVEHHQH[WUDFWHGRXWRIHDFKFRQMXQFWXQGHUJRLQJDFURVVWKHERDUGUDLVLQJWRWKHKLJKHUKHDG7 E PDNHVWKHVDPHSRLQWDFKXQNZKLFKFRQWDLQVDORFDWLRQDO
33DQGDQDFFXVDWLYH'3ZLWKLWVQXPHUDOFODVVLILHULVFRRUGLQDWHGZLWKDQRWKHUFKXQNRIWKH
VDPH W\SH DQG WKLV PHDQV WKDW WKH FKXQNV LQ TXHVWLRQ DUH FRQVWLWXHQWV 8QGHU .RL]XPL¶VDQDO\VLV E LVGHULYHGLQWKHVDPHZD\DV  +HWKHQFODLPVWKDWFRRUGLQDWLRQLQYROYHG
LQ D DQG E SURYLGHVVXSSRUWLQJHYLGHQFHIRUWKHH[LVWHQFHRIRYHUW9UDLVLQJWR7 RUY 
LQ-DSDQHVH
.RL]XPLIXUWKHUPHQWLRQVWKDW9FDQUDLVHQRWRQO\WR7EXWDOVRWR&RQWKHEDVLVRIWKH
IROORZLQJH[DPSOHV   D   >>0DU\JD    ULQJRR     WX@ WR   >1DQF\JD    EDQDQDR            0DU\120 DSSOH$&& &/ DQG 1DQF\120 EDQDQD$&&           ERQ@@  WDEHWD           &/    HDW367           /LW µ>0DU\DSSOHV@DQG>1DQF\EDQDQDV@DWH¶         .RL]XPL       E   >>0DU\JD    -RKQQL    ULQJRR     WX@ WR   >1DQF\JD            0DU\120 -RKQ'$7 DSSOH$&& &/ DQG 1DQF\120           %REQL    EDQDQDR     ERQ@  DJHWD           %RE'$7  EDQDQD$&&  &/   JLYH367           /LW µ>0DU\DSSOHVWR-RKQ@DQG>1DQF\EDQDQDVWR%RE@JDYH¶.RL]XPL ,Q D DFKXQNZKHUHDQRPLQDWLYH'3LHDVXEMHFWDQGDQDFFXVDWLYH'3ZLWKLWVQXPHUDOFODVVLILHULVFRRUGLQDWHGZLWKDFKXQNRIWKHVDPHW\SHLQ E ZKDWLVFRRUGLQDWHGLVDFKXQN
LQFOXGLQJDQRPLQDWLYH'3LHDVXEMHFWDGDWLYH'3DQGDQDFFXVDWLYH'3ZLWKLWVQXPHUDOFODVVLILHU :KDW LV FUXFLDOO\ GLIIHUHQW EHWZHHQ WKH FDVHV LQ   DQG WKH RQHV LQ   LV WKH
SUHVHQFHDEVHQFHRIDVXEMHFWZLWKLQDFRQMXQFW*LYHQWKHVWDQGDUGDVVXPSWLRQWKDWVXEMHFWVDUHORFDWHGLQ6SHF73.RL]XPLDQDO\]HVWKHGDWDLQ  DVLQYROYLQJRYHUW9UDLVLQJWR&LQ
WKHDFURVVWKHERDUGPDQQHU0RUHVSHFLILFDOO\ D LVDQDO\]HGDVIROORZV   >&3>>730DU\>93DSSOHW9@W7@DQG>731DQF\>93EDQDQDW9@W7@@&@
+HUH9RYHUWO\UDLVHVWR7LQHDFKFRQMXQFWDQGWKHQXQGHUJRHVDFURVVWKHERDUGUDLVLQJWR&



-58-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)Thus, if Koizumi’s analysis is on the right track, the grammaticality of (30a) and (30b) indicatesthat V can overtly raise not only up to T but also up to C in Japanese.7
Given the above discussion, let us turn to whether coordination in Mongolian provides us
with supporting evidence for the existence of overt V-raising. Consider the following examples.
(32) a.

Batu-Ø
[[Baɣatur-du nom-Ø
2-debter] bolun [Ulaɣan-duBatu-NOM Bagatur-DAT book-ACC 2-CL
andUlagan-DATšikir3-keseg]] üg-čei.
candy-ACC 3-CL
give-PST.CON‘Batu gave 2 books to Bagatur, and 3 candies to Ulagan.’b.

Batu-Ø
[[nom-undelgegür-eče sedkül-Ø
2-debter] bolun
Batu-NOM book-GEN store-frommagazine-ACC 2-CL
and[delgegür-ečešikir-ø3-keseg]] qudaldun ab-čai.
supermarket-from candy-ACC 3-CLbuytake-PST.CON‘Batu bought 2 magazines at a book store, and three candies at a supermarket.’(33) a.

[[Batu-Ønom-Ø
2-debter] bolun [Ulaɣan-Øšikir-ø
Batu-NOM book-ACC 2-CL
andUlagan-NOM candy-ACC
3-keseg]] qudaldun abu-čai.
3-CL
buy
take-PST.CON(Lit.) ‘[Batu two books] and [Ulagan 3 candies] bought.’b.

[[Batu-ØBaɣatur-dunom-ø
2-debter] bolun [Ulaɣan-Ø
Bat-NOM Bagatur-DAT book-ACC 2-CL
andUlagan-NOM
Gerel-dušikir-Ø3-keseg] üg-čeiGerel-DAT candy-ACC 3-CL
give-PST.CON(Lit.) ‘[Batu two books to Bagatur] and [Ulagan 3 candies to Gerel] gave.’

The examples in (32) correspond to (28), and the ones in (33) to (30). That the examples in (32)and (33) are all grammatical indicates that V in Mongolian can raise not only to T but also to
C in the same way as V in Japanese (cf. (29) and (31)). That V can overtly raise to C is aprerequisite for the structural analysis of VEAs (cf. (26)), thus the grammaticality of (32) and(33) providing us with an indirect argument for such an analysis.

7
Two notes are in order here. First, as he himself notes, Koizumi mentions that if subjects can stay in
vP in Japanese (cf. Kuroda 1988), the examples in (30) then show that V can raise to a position higher
than vP in Japanese. Second, overt V-raising is not the only possibility for the coordination cases in (28)and (30) (cf. Takano 2002, Fukui and Sakai 2003, Kobayashi to appear). Thus, the main goal of thefollowing discussion regarding Mongolian coordination would be rather humble: we argue that theMongolian data with respect to coordination are compatible with Koizumi’s V-raising analysis of nonconstituent coordination.



-59-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

4. Conclusion
In this paper, we investigated the syntactic properties of VEAs in Mongolian. First, we showedthat in VEAs the null adjunct reading which the pro-drop analysis cannot account for isavailable and voice mismatch is disallowed. We then mentioned that both properties can be
accounted for if VEAs involve TP-size ellipsis, neither pro-drop nor VP-size ellipsis. Further,
we argued that intolerance of voice mismatch leads us to conclude that ellipsis sites of VEAs
involve syntax, providing us with supporting evidence for the structural analysis of ellipsis.
Then, building on Koizumi (2000), we demonstrated that what appears to be a non-constituent
in Mongolian can be a conjunct, being coordinated with another chunk of the same type, andclaimed that this can be used to argue for overt V-raising to T and C in Mongolian, whichindirectly supports the structural analysis of VEAs.
Appendix: Embedded VEA in Mongolian
In the above discussion, we have focused on VEAs that appear in a matrix clause as in(34A1), but VEAs can also appear in an embedded clause, as shown in (34A2).
(34) Q: Batu-bol Baɣatur-i
Batu-TOP Bagatur-ACC

sigümjile-gsen
criticize-PST.ADN

uu?
Q‘Did Batu criticize Bagatur?’
A1: Sigümjile-jai.
criticize-PST.CON(Lit.) ‘Criticized.’
A2: [CP Sigümjile-gsengejü] bodu-na.
criticize-PST.ADN C
think-NPST.CON(Lit.) ‘I think that criticized.’
In (34A2), only the V sigümjile ‘criticize’ is stranded in an embedded clause, but the sentence
can mean that the speaker thinks that Batu criticized Bagatur. In this appendix, we discussembedded VEAs in Mongolian, showing that it exhibits the same properties that matrix VEAs
in Mongolian do.
First, let us consider whether the null adjunct reading is available in embedded VEAs.
Consider the following examples.
(35) Q:

Batu-bol ariqi-yi
qurdun-iyar uuɣu-ɣsanuu?
Batu-TOP alcohol-ACC quickly
drink-PST.ADN Q‘Did Batu drink alcohol quickly?’




-60-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)A:

[CP Uuɣu-ɣsanügei
drink-PST.ADN NEG

gejü] bodu-na.
Cthink-NPST.CON(Lit.) ‘I think not drank.’
With (35Q) as its antecedent, (35A) can mean that the speaker thinks that Batu did not drink
alcohol quickly. The availability of the null adjunct reading strongly suggests that embedded
VEAs as well as matrix VEAs involve ellipsis rather than pro-drop in Mongolian (see thediscussion in section 2.1).
Next, let us turn to voice mismatch. Recall that intolerance of voice mismatch in Mongolian
matrix VEAs was taken to indicate TP ellipsis (see the discussion in section 2.2). Keeping thisin mind, consider the following examples.
(36) Q:Čin-uyeke surɣaɣuli-bol yamar nige kelen-ü
you-GEN university-TOP
someonekölüsle-gsenuu?
hire-PST.ADN Q

erdemten-ilinguist-ACC‘Did your university hire any linguist?’
A1: Teimü. [CP Kölüsle-gsen gejü] bodu-na.
yeshire-PST.ADN C
think-NPST.CON(Lit.) ‘Yes. I think that hired.’A2: *Teimü. [CP Kölüsle-gde-gsen
yeshire-PASS-PST.ADN

gejü] bodu-na.
Cthink-NPST.CON(Lit.) ‘Yes. I think that was hired.’
The antecedent sentence (36Q) involves active voice, and with (36Q) as its antecedent, (36A1),
which involves the active embedded VEA, is grammatical, while (36A2), which involves thepassive embedded VEA, is ungrammatical. The ungrammaticality of (36A2) then indicates thatembedded VEAs as well as matrix VEAs should be analyzed as involving TP-size ellipsis,
neither VP-size ellipsis nor pro-drop. Furthermore, as discussed in section 2.2.2, that voicemismatch is disallowed can also be considered as an argument for the presence of silent
structure in ellipsis sites of embedded VEAs.
As a final note, building on Koizumi’s (2000) observation in Japanese, we provide thefollowing data regarding coordination, suggesting that overt V-raising, which is a prerequisite
for the V-raising + ellipsis analysis of VEAs, is operative not only in a matrix clause but also
in an embedded clause in Mongolian.




-61-

1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFK5HVXOWVDQG$FWLYLWLHV   D   %DWXERO   >&3 %DܵDWXU     >>8ODܵDQGX    QRP     GHEWHU@ EROXQ           %DWX723     %DJDWXU120  8ODJDQ'$7 ERRN$&&  &/     DQG           >*HUHOGX   ãLNLU     NHVHJ@@ JNJVHQ      JHM@ ERGXMX EDLQD           *HUHO'$7 FDQG\$&& &/     JLYH367$'1  &    WKLQN   &231367           µ%DWXWKLQNVWKDW%DJDWXUJDYH>>ERRNVWR8ODJDQ@DQG>FDQGLHVWR*HUHO@@¶      E   %DWXERO   >&3 >>%DܵDWXU     QRP     GHEWHU@ EROXQ >8ODܵDQ           %DWX723      %DJDWXU120 ERRN$&&  &/     DQG   8ODJDQ120           ãLNLU      NHVHJ@@ TXGDOGXQ DEXܵVDQ      JHM@  ERGXMX EDLQD           FDQG\$&&  &/     EX\      WDNH367$'1 &     WKLQN   &231367           /LW µ%DWXWKLQNVWKDW>>%DJDWXUWZRERRNV@DQG>8ODJDQFDQGLHV@@ERXJKW¶,Q D DFKXQNLQZKLFKDGDWLYH'3DQGDQDFFXVDWLYH'3ZLWKLWVQXPHUDOFODVVLILHUH[LVWLVFRRUGLQDWHG ZLWK D FKXQN RI WKH VDPH W\SH ZLWKLQ DQ HPEHGGHG FODXVH PHDQLQJ WKDW WKHHPEHGGHG FKXQNV LQ TXHVWLRQ DUH FRQVWLWXHQWV 8QGHU WKH RYHUW 9UDLVLQJ DQDO\VLV WKHHPEHGGHGFODXVHLQ D LVDQDO\]HGDVIROORZV   >&3>73%DJDWXU>>93WR8ODJDQERRNW9@DQG>93WR*HUHOFDQG\W9@@79JDYH@&@

+HUHWKH9JNJVHQµJDYH¶XQGHUJRHVUDLVLQJWR7IURPHDFKFRQMXQFWLQWKHDFURVVWKHERDUG
PDQQHUPDNLQJWKHFKXQNVLQTXHVWLRQDFRQVWLWXHQW,Q E DFKXQNLQFOXGLQJDQRPLQDWLYH
'3LHDVXEMHFWDQGDQDFFXVDWLYH'3ZLWKLWVQXPHUDOFODVVLILHULVFRRUGLQDWHGZLWKDFKXQN
RIWKHVDPHW\SHZLWKLQDQHPEHGGHGFODXVH8QGHU.RL]XPL¶VDQDO\VLVWKHHPEHGGHGFODXVH
LQ E UHFHLYHVWKHDQDO\VLVLOOXVWUDWHGLQ     >&3>>73%DJDWXU>93ERRNW9@W7@DQG>738ODJDQ>93FDQG\W9@W7@@&@


+HUHWKH9TXGDOGXQDEXћVDQµERXJKW¶KDVXQGHUJRQHUDLVLQJWR7LQHDFKFRQMXQFWDQGWKHQIXUWKHUUDLVHGWR&RXWRIWKHFRQMXQFWVLQWKHDFURVVWKHERDUGPDQQHU,IWKHDQDO\VLVLOOXVWUDWHG
LQ   LV RQ WKH ULJKW WUDFN WKH JUDPPDWLFDOLW\ RI E  FDQEH FRQVLGHUHG DV D VXSSRUWLQJHYLGHQFHIRUWKHH[LVWHQFHRIRYHUW9UDLVLQJWR&LQ0RQJROLDQZKLFKLQWXUQSURYLGHVXVZLWKDEDVHIRUWKHVWUXFWXUDODQDO\VLVRI0RQJROLDQHPEHGGHG9($V$VIDUDVWKHDERYHGDWDDUHFRQVLGHUHGHPEHGGHG9($VLQ0RQJROLDQH[KLELWH[DFWO\WKH
VDPHSURSHUWLHVDVPDWUL[9($VLQWKDWWKH\FDQ\LHOGWKHQXOODGMXQFWUHDGLQJDQGWKH\GRQRWWROHUDWHYRLFHPLVPDWFK7KHUHIRUHLWVHHPVVDIHIRUXVWRFRQFOXGHWKDWERWKHPEHGGHG9($V
DQGPDWUL[9($VFDQEHIDOOHQXQGHUWKHVDPHDQDO\VLVWKH\DUHGHULYHGYLDRYHUW9UDLVLQJWR&IROORZHGE\73HOOLSVLV






-62-

Verb-Echo Answers in Mongolian (Y. Sakamoto & L. Bao)

References
Chung, S. (2013) “Syntactic Identity in Sluicing: How Much and Why?,” Linguistic Inquiry 44, 1–44.
Chung, S., W. Ladusaw, and J. McCloskey (1995) Sluicing and Logical Form, Natural Language
Semantics 3, 239–282.
Culicover, P. W. and R. Jackendoff (2005) Simpler Syntax, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Delrymple, M., S. M. Sheiber, and F. C. N. Pereira (1991) “Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification,”
Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399−452.
Fiengo, R. and R. May (1994) Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Fukui, N. and H. Sakai. (2003) “The Visibility Guideline for Functional Categories: Verb Raising inJapanese and Related Issues,” Lingua 113, 321–375.
Funakoshi, K. (2016) “Verb-Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 25, 113−142.
Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag. (2000) Interrogative Investigations, CSLI Publications, Stanford, Calif.
Holmberg, A. (2016) The Syntax of Yes and No, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Keenan, E. (1971) “Names, Quantifiers, and the Sloppy Identity Problem,” Papers in Linguistics 4,
211−232.
Kim, S. (1999) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255–284.
Kobayashi, R. (to appear) “Against V-to-T-to-C Movement in Japanese: A Case Study of NonConstituent Coordination.” In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics,
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.
Koizumi, M. (2000) “String Vacuous Overt Verb Raising,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–
285.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Study of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigations 12, 1‒47.
Merchant, J. (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Merchant, J. (2013) “Voice and Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77–108.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Program, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Sag, I. (1976) Deletion and Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.
Sakamoto, Y. (2012) A Study of Sluicing and Cleft in Mongolian: A Comparison with Japanese, M.A.
thesis, Tohoku University.
Sakamoto, Y. (2017) Escape from Silent Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Sakamoto, Y. (in press) Silently Structured Silent Argument, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Sato, Y. and S. Hayashi. (2018) “String-Vacuous Head Movement in Japanese: New Evidence fromVerb-Echo Answers,” Syntax 21, 72‒90.
Sugimura, M. (2012) Domain Extension: A Study of Restructuring Predicates in Japanese and the Roleof Head Movement, Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
Takahashi, D. (2007) “Argument Ellipsis from a Comparative Perspective: An Interim Report,” Paper
presented at GLOW in Asia VI, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Takano, Y. (2002) “Surprising constituents,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 243–301.
Williams, E. (1977) “Discourse and Logical Form,” Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.

-63-